From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 8 13:48:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA15922 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:48:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15846 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA07705; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 22:42:08 +0200 (CEST) To: John Polstra cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is tickadj still required in -CURRENT ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Oct 1998 13:37:18 PDT." <199810082037.NAA24112@austin.polstra.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:42:07 +0200 Message-ID: <7703.907879327@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199810082037.NAA24112@austin.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: >> Uhm, sorry, no longer true, tickadj has nothing what so ever to do >> with what time it is any more... > >Not even on 486 machines? Sorry, I was mistaken then. No, the only place where the length of a "tick" enters the picture is in how fast the adjtime(2) delta is applied, and we're talking second order dependency here, so don't worry, you can't even measure it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." "ttyv0" -- What UNIX calls a $20K state-of-the-art, 3D, hi-res color terminal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message